I’ve heard several arguments regarding something that might be called the natural justice of the market. The state is more or less an offender of the justice that the market naturally (in the sense of “without effort”) creates. Markets that are deep and well-developed will naturally avoid over-pricing or usury. These sorts of situations only occur in poorer nations or systems.

This is in fact false, but it does concede something I don’t think is always realized. That is the state is necessary for the development of the market. It is simply not possible for the market to arise to the level required without the existence of the state. The is no reasonable or plausible argument that had the Roman Empire never existed, the market would have just simply developed and all would be well. The state provides the necessary conditions for the market to flourish in the first place.

After the market has become well developed the relationship between the market and the state certainly becomes complicated. However, there is no doubt that the market could not come to be without the state, any more than, in Aristotle’s terms, wealth-getting would not arise without proper management of the house.